By ALAIN PATRIE

MONTREAL — This city has been rocked with the incredible performance: by the Confedera- tion of National Trade Unions which held a three-day congress devoted to an exercise of back- biting and poisoning the at- mosphere against those seg- ments of the union leadership that pursue a policy of mili- tancy and unity. Their efforts were culminated by the public expulsion from their ranks of Michel Chartrand, president of the Montreal Central Council, and Florent Audette, director of the Montreal Construction Union. ;

Mr. Pepin, president of the CNTU, accused Mr. Chartrand of anarchism and splitting the union. What he was referring to was Mr. Chartrand’s decision as technical advisor to the Mont- real Construction Union, to join the walkout of some 20,000 building trades workers affiliated with the Quebec Federation of Labor. This contravened the policy of the CNTU. °

The three-day meeting man- aged to generate a lot of heat, including reams of copy in the bourgeois press as they specu- lated on the outcome of a sup- posed personality conflict, while very little light is being shed on the concrete issues themselves.

Issue of Unity With. the position he has

taken Mr. Chartrand clearly opt--

ed for unity in his approach to the working-class struggle in Quebec; in particular a unity that transcends narrow national views and joins hands with the

international unions in the strug- gle against employer-exploiters.

Along with this, the recent strike of the Montreal Construc- tion Union exhibited a militant position against the draconian and corporatist-tinged Bill 290 promulgated by the Quebec Na- tional Assembly in its effort to suppress the labor struggle.

For Mr. Pepin, an. avowed right wing opportunist who never ceases to espound his “a- political” - position, Michel Char- trand has become a bone in the throat. ‘““‘We cannot continue to endure,” Pepin said with emo- tion, “‘a man whose every gesture is anarchistic. It’s a question of the future of our movement.”

Feeling of Frustration

There is no question that in the past Michel Chartrand has acted as a clumsy anarchist. One of the Montreal’ papers put it (anarchism) aptly as ‘feelings shared by many in the move- ment who are frustrated at the inability of unionism to radically push society towards their vision of social equity.”

Lenin’s statement takes sub- stance in this case when he said that anarchism was often “a form of punishment for the op- portunist sins of the working class movement.”

Mr. Pepin’s opportunism has become legendary. He was groomed as a replacement for Jean Marchand (ex-head of the CNTU and now Regional Expan- sion Minister in Trudeau’s cabi- net).

Mr. Pepin’s. speech consisted in the main of stressing the func-

- tion of unions as being economic 4

“struggle. A few years ago there

might have been some merit in his saying that a strike is a pure- ly economic battle. One factory going out on strike does not sig- nify a class struggle. But in re- cent times there have been many strikes and at the same time. These signify political struggle. There has been a qualitative change in the country as a whole and this is the root reason for the internecine duel in the CNTU.

‘Political Battle

An index of this development is just beginning to take form in the upcoming municipal elec- tions in Montreal. For better than a decade the metropolis has been victim of a high handed and elitist city government. The city continues to stagger from bad to worse: housing, transpor- tation, welfare, pollution, em- ployment—each one more scan- dalous than the next.

Mr. Chartrand has been elo- quent recently over. the need to create a united front of the three major Quebec labor groups, the CNTU, QFL and the Quebec Teachers Federation. If this stra- tegy became reality then they could join together with the FRAP, a losely knit group of citizen’s committees, so that the Montreal working class might show the scurrilous Drapeau- Saulnier team the way out.

The accomplishment of the ex- pulsion will in no way further the militancy and unity of the working class. Recent elections have shown what splintering costs.

or professional red-baiters?

By ERIK BERT

NEW YORK — We have re- ceived two bits of evidence sug- gesting that~the so-called ‘con- struction’ workers demonstra- tion of May 20 in New York City was really infested with professionals of quite a different character. ©

This evidence consists of two mimeographed documents. One, entitled, ‘Hello, Remember Me?” is a plea to remember “Old Glory,” or the “Star Spangled Banner,” and the men who fell at “Anzio, Guadalcanal, Korea and now Vietnam.”

The other is entitled “It’s later than you think!” At the bottom of. each leaflet are the words: “Note: The above was distributed on Wall Street on May 20, 1970 by patriotic, seri- ous-thinking students.”

This subscript suggests that both leaflets are now being dis- tributed as historic documents of the “construction workers” confrontation by ultra-Right for- ces.

The “later than you think” leaflet is the more venomous. It says:

“Over fifty years ago, in May of 1919 at Duesseldorf, Ger- many, the Allied forces obtained a copy of some of the ‘Commun- ist Rules for Revolution’. Now fifty years later, the Reds are still ‘following the rule’. As you read the list, stop after each item and think about the pres- ent-day siuation where you live —and all around our nation.”

In the absence of any more Specific allegations, which could be refuted in detail, all that it

‘to have faith in “theif

is possible to say is that ee never were any such “CO ist Rules for Revolution, that therefore, the Allied fo never obtained any, 1% at any other time.

Appropriately, a large

let depicts as “Communist — resents, in fact, capitalist enteprise, mae alleged ‘“‘Red” emphasis } “sexy books and other hi ties,” “rising prices,” “st in vital industries,” an@ disorders.” hr The leaflet cites aS 2 — a9 rule the attempt to “destty people’s faith in thelr He leaders by holding the Lae to contempt, ridicule ane — quy.” a The purpose of this, of ye is to convince Americans leaders” like Richard © Spiro Agnew, Melvin Lal similar personalities. for Nixon and his © te thus becomes “Red” co?” for our “natural leaders: The leaflet—like s¢° other ultra-Rightist docum now and in the past, Wa forgeries or straightforw4 5 trine — lauds “the 0% . virtues, honesty, sobriety 4 faith in the p (

tinence,

word, ruggedness.” F

not written by const" ; in the®

workers, but by pros ! democracy and anti-com rackets. 2

They are interesting the ultra-Right finds it ne to present its program a forged document, rather 0 fering reaction straight ous

(Continued from Page 6)

ingly on limiting the existing power ~ structure without which Canadian in- dependence will not be regained. There is no doubt that the struggle to regain Canadian independence will shake up Canadian politics, further the process of polarization and increasingly merge with the struggle for socialism. The most revolutionary task in Canada to- day is the defeat of Canadian monopo- ly and U.S. imperialism and the re- gaining of Canadian independence. There is no real prospects for social- ism unless that task is accomplished.

THE QUEBEC ELECTIONS

The Quebec election results gives us another illustration of the process of polarization which is taking shape in Canadian political life.

These results are fairly well known. The Liberals, heavily financed by Cana- dian and U.S. monoply interests, won a majority with 44% of the popular vote. Union Nationale suffered a severe electoral defeat, with a significant por- tion of those who voted for it before, turning’ to Social Credit in the coun- tryside and to the Parti Quebecois in the urban centres.

The immediate reaction in monopoly circles was relief in the fact that sepa- ratism had been defeated at the polls. This however, was a superficial reac- tion which-it was quick to correct, be- cause bagically the election results did not vepbive anything. This is why Bouragsa took a more sober attitude to the election results and admitted that the Liberal Government had between two to four years in which to carry through its program, and that failure -» + PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FRIDAY, JUNE 12, 1970—Page 8

to do so, could open the gates to sepa- ratism in Quebec.

The Bourassa Government faced with the gigantic task of imple- menting its election promises, first and foremost its promise to curtail unem- ployment which is among the highest in the country, and make 100,000 jobs available.

Clearly the Bourassa Government is not faced with an easy task, that is, to stay in power in opposition to the na- tional aspirations of the French Cana- dian people ond their economic and social needs.

The root of the problem is equality of the French Canadian people in all spheres of social life and that con- tinues to be ignored. The average wage

_in Quebec is considerably lower than

other parts of the country while, as already noted, unemployment is amongst the highest in the country. The educational system in Quebec is inferior to that in English speaking Canada. The key positions in industry and finance are in the hands of Eng- lish Canadian and U.S. monopoly. Re- ducing unemployment somewhat will not overcome the inequality which ex- ists in Quebec.

The Trudeau Government can be held responsible for this situation. By speaking of “one nation in one coun- try” and treating the problem as basic- ally one of language and culture; by refusing to recognize the national and social rights of the French Canadian people and incorporating these national rights in a new Canadian Constiution on the basis of an equal voluntary part- nership of the two nations, a more

is now

dangerous and complicated situation has evolved in Quebec politics. The

perspective thus is one of sharpened .

struggle despite the efforts of the Bourrassa Government to paper it over.

DEMAND FOR CHANGE >

In assessing the election results it would be wrong to conclude that the substantial vote received by the Parti Quebecois was a vote for separatism. Undoubtedly a part of it was, although even here one would have to make a distinction between different concepts of separatism, because it could include those who are for a special ‘status or a greater measure of autonomy for Quebec. But it should be equally noted that a major portion of the vote was an expression of non-confidence in the old line parties and in the status quo, an-expression of a growing demand for change.

In its own way, and taking into ac- count the specific flavor of the politics of the French Canadian nation, the vote marked a process of polarization in Quebec politics. This polarization is likely to continue as the Liberal Party, the party of Canadian and U.S. mon- opoly interests, fails to come to grips with the real national aspirations and economic and social needs of the work- ing people,

This polarization. may also find re- flection in a process of differentiation within the Parti Quebecois. That party

» is not homogeneous. It is a petty bour-

gegis social reformist nationalist move- ment which includes in its ranks and amongst its supporters different cur- rents ranging from separatists to na-

tional, democratic and socialist However, its program is petty geois nationalist and separal such, it can neither be endo™ supported. é In the complicated situation presently exists, the Parti Comte du Quebec has undertaken 4 atic struggle against petty nationalism and separatism 4 internationalist policy base of the working class of Que? unity of the workers of Fre? English speaking Canada in the gle for social and economic “aro They call for democratic cont monopoly and for a voluntary 4 partnership of the two nati? new Canadian Constitution 84 ing the right to self-determin@ both nations. These tasks 9 linked to the struggle to ©? Bourassa Government to imple™ promise of 100,000 new jobs. In light of the election Trudeau Government appeals of realized that its brutal denial fi exisience of the French Can@ ive tion must be modified. This }§ “af ed in talk of speeding up cons” reform. patty i The responsibility of oUt | wy English Canada is to convincé aly ing people to press for the Oil solution of this question whee the same time lay the basis of English and French Canada- that quires recognition of the fact French Canadians in Quebec tion, and that Canada needs 4 ty stitution that guarantees 0 a ti tions equality and the right t0 self determination.

nd fi

esullé

Cs